Written by

Chris Sikich

Indianapolis Star

The long, hard battle over the state’s right-to-work law appears headed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Lake Superior Court Judge John­ Sedia ruled Thursday the law violates a provision in the state constitution barring the­ delivery of services “without just compensation.” Sedia, who was­ appointed by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels in 2012, ruled the law incorrectly forces unions to represent workers who don’t pay union dues.

The Indiana attorney gen­eral’s office said it will seek to appeal the case di­rectly to the state Supreme Court.

Republican lawmakers said Monday they are confident the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling.

Rep. Jerry Torr, R-Carmel, a leading advocate for passing right-to-work in 2012, thinks the Supreme Court will side with the state legislature. Unions deliberately filed the lawsuit in labor-friendly Lake­ County, he said, to find a favorable decision.

“This is not unex­pected in Lake­ County,” he said. “I’m sure they went­ forum shopping when they filed the suit. I am confident that this­ decision won’t stand.”

Torr said Republican lawmakers think the constitutional provision cited in the decision applies only to individuals rendering services, not to unions. He said unions raised the same concern during the legislative process, and lawmakers discounted it.

“I remember when the labor unions first raised that argument in one of the committees and for a second, I thought, ‘Oh ... that’s a great argument,’ ” Torr said. “Then I thought it through, and it’s just nonsense.”

Legal experts agree the unions’ victory likely will be short-lived. Joel Schumm, a law pro­fessor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said the constitutional clause under question historically has applied to individuals.

(Page 2 of 2)

The Supreme Court, he said, would need to be convinced to extend that right from individuals to unions.

“Unions are not generally thought of as a ‘person,’ nor are they organizations that existed when the Indiana Constitution was ratified in 1851,” he said.

He thinks it’s unlikely the Indiana Supreme Court will redefine individuals as unions. He said the court gives significant deference to the legislature to enact state laws.

“In the past few months,” he said, “the court has upheld legislation authorizing school vouchers and the imposition and collection of fines against the Democratic legislators who went to­ Illinois during session.”

David Orentlicher, a law professor at the IU School of Law in Indianapolis and a former Demo­cratic state lawmaker, said the attorney general’s office also could argue it’s the federal government that’s requiring unions to represent nonpaying workers — and that’s outside the purview of state law.

He said the Supreme Court could find legal arguments to rule either way in what has become a complicated legal dispute. However, he thinks past rulings make it­ likely the court will overturn the Lake­ County decision.

“I think the odds are the law will be upheld,” he said. “There is at least a reasonable argument. The fact they got a court decision shows you can make a reasonable argument.”

Republicans approved right-to-work in 2012 after two years of acrimonious debate that saw Democrats temporarily flee to Illinois to stop the legislative process. Thousands of union workers descended on the Statehouse in thunderous protests, marching through the Super Bowl Village to bring the national spotlight to their cause.

Ultimately, though, the Democrats took their seats and the unions went back to work. Indiana­ became the 23rd state in the nation to ban the collection of mandatory fees for representation from unions when Daniels signed the bill Feb. 1, 2012, without ceremony.

But the fight didn’t stop for unions when the ink dried. Their lawyers went to court to overturn the law. The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 filed the lawsuit in Lake County.

“This is a victory for the middle class,” Local 150 president-business manager James M. Sweeney said in a prepared statement. “These laws are nothing but thinly veiled tools to weaken unions, and this is a big win for workers who rely on unions to provide decent wages and benefits.”